Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors) v Gary George Leslie Paice Kim Springall
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
Areas of Law
- Construction Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns an application for an injunction by a building contractor against property developers to prevent adjudication over a construction contract dispute. The court examined two main issues: It found that the Defendants were not unreasonable in seeking further adjudication and that the new adjudicator had jurisdiction. The application was dismissed, thus enabling the Defendants to pursue a determination on the actual sum due in a new adjudication.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Edwards-Stuart:
Introduction
This is an application by the Claimant for an injunction to restrain the Defendants from proceeding with a reference to adjudication started by a Notice of Adjudication dated 14 October 2014. Mr. Gideon Scott Holland, instructed by Davies & Davies, appeared for the Claimant, and Mr. Charles Pimlott, instructed by Silver Shemmings, appeared for the Defendants.
The application was made initially on two grounds:
that the Defendants have acted unreasonably and/or oppressively by pursuing the adjudication without first complying with the Decision dated 6 October 2014 in a previous adjudication (“the third adjudication”) between the parties; and
that the adjudicator appointed in the new (fourth) adjudication does not have jurisdiction to decide the dispute referred to him because that dispute is the same or substantially the same as that already decided in the previous adjudication.
By a letter dated 27 October 2014 Silver Shemmings notified Davies & Davies that their clients would not be defending the application to enforce the decision in the third adjudication. However, they said that their clients needed to put arrangements in place in order to find the money and they asked the Claimant to extend the time for payment until 3 November 2014.
This offer, although made after the Claimant’s application had been issued, has largely undermined the Claimant’s first ground for making this application. However, Mr. Scott Holland expressed concern that the Defendants might not make the promised payment and wished to reserve his client’s position. In relation to the first ground, the application is stayed, with permission to apply.
When I had heard submissions from both parties I reached the conclusion that there was clearly a triable issue and that the balance of convenience favoured granting a short interim injunction until 4 November 2013. A few days’ delay would make little difference and it might avoid the need for the Claimant to spend time and money preparing a Response in the fourth adjudication were I to grant the relief sought by the Claimant. Accordingly, I granted interim relief on that basis.
The facts
The Claimant is a building contractor and at all material times the Defendants were property developers.
The parties entered into a building contract dated 25 March 2013 in the form of the JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract 2011 with amendments (“the Contract”). The Claimant undertook to ca